Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop
Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
- Casliber
- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
- Cool Hand Luke
- Coren
- David Fuchs
- Elen of the Roads
- Jclemens
- John Vandenberg
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mailer diablo
- Newyorkbrad
- PhilKnight
- Roger Davies
- Xeno
Inactive
- Risker
- SirFozzie
Recused
- Iridescent
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.
Workshop proposals with regards to unblocks
Sandstein has made the point, which I think is a valid one, that one of the issues surrounding Mick's conduct was that unblocks were handed out too easily when Mick was blocked, and I think his analysis comes across as reasonable.
However I was recently involved in a case where a user who had conducted a first time offence involving some sock/meat-puppetry, which involved only a very small number of edits including one talk page discussion and a single page of shared edits - for this they were given an indefinite block which was clearly excessive.
Then because the administrator in question refused to lose face and reverse the block themselves, even though they were unable to adequately justify it with policy, it took to threatening to take the case to Arbcom to get the matter cleaned up. This wasted vast quantities of time and energy that could have been put to something more useful. Of note I can provide diffs if needed to back this up.
While discouraging unblocks would make unblocks of popular editors less likely, which is a good thing, it would also make unblocks of less popular editors less likely as well, which is fairly clearly a bad thing.
I think a publicly visible centralised review system for blocks would be more beneficial as that would bring unblock requests out into the open and make it clearer to everyone that they need to be applied consistently across editors - that's the current system for page protections - and the ones that are discussed publicly are normally applied equally and fairly sensibly.
As there is also clearly an issue with popular editors getting their mates to unblock them, even when they know its going to ANI and thus be public and so I think a requirement to require multiple uninvolved admins (say 3) to make a decision in each case would be a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Chester Markel
I note that Risker has blocked Chester Markel (talk · contribs) as a sock of John254. I seems to me that per DENY his proposals should be removed from the Workshop page. They have already drawn some response, but in my view the need to deny recognition to banned sockpuppeteers should outweigh the inconvenience. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, ArbCom decided to accept this case based on their view of the issues in question, not because of the person who initiated it. If I'd proposed it, they would probably have made the same decision. As they would if it had been Sandstein who started it, or FT2 or any other editor. So to start with, there is absolutely no reason to discontinue the case simply because Chester has proved to be untrustworthy: Mick still behaved as he did, the parties to the case still behaved as they did, and that is why the Arbs chose to look into things. The question of how much credit should be given to Chester's proposals etc. should likewise by dealt with by ArbCom IMO. They are the people who have to make the final decision on motions and so on, and they are quite capable of exercising that judgement while giving Chester's contribution as much credit as they feel it deserves. So in a sense I'm saying, relax, forget the case's slightly unorthodox rootes and move on. I have every faith that the potential problems here will be dealt with. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 10:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
Proposals by Chester Markel
- Moved from project page
Collapsing proposals submitted by a banned user. Proposals may be resubmitted by editors qualified to participate at their discretion. –xenotalk 13:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
1) MickMacNee is a disruptive editor. His contributions are characterized by edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, hostility, aggression, and deliberately inflammatory commentary.
2) Δ is a disruptive editor. His contributions are characterized by edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, disregard for consensus, and misuse of bots and scripts.
3) Sandstein's latest block of MickMacNee was adequately justified by policy and supported by consensus.
4) HJ Mitchell's reduction in the length of the block placed upon MickMacNee's account was effectuated without consensus.
5) Hammersoft made a comment[2] which could be construed as an egregious personal attack on MickMacNee, starting a heated edit war.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
2) Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
3) Sandstein is thanked for the willingness to control disruptive editing reflected in his latest block of MickMacNee. Administrators are advised to refrain from reversing blocks until agreed by the blocking administrator or clear consensus is shown for unblocking.
4) HJ Mitchell is reminded that the reversal of blocks unilaterally or without sufficient consensus disrupts Wikipedia and creates the need for lengthy arbitration cases, and is requested to take greater care to ensure community support for unblocking.
I don't like the targetting of Sandstein and HJ for their specific actions, but I think a general "reminder to all admins" about wheel warring is warranted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
5) Hammersoft is reminded of the need for civility and avoidance of comments which might reasonably be construed as personal attacks.
|
Block log annotation
Some of the comments on the workshop page (about looking at the context of blocks, so as to understand the significance of a block history) prompt me to point out that I recently created a means to annotate block logs. See Wikipedia:VPR#Block_log_annotation. There is a certain tendency, particularly at moments of drama, for a block log's significance to be judged primarily by length, regardless of context or age or cause of older blocks. This is like judging the strength of a legal case by weighing the paper it's printed on. Rd232 public talk 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Change to the blocking policy
I've suggested a change to the blocking policy which requires the blocking admin to be contacted in some circumstances. Comments are welcome. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)